posted
Wow, Rivka has over 15.5K posts! Okay, so the measurement thing... I was thinking about how sig figs can really screw measurements up. Like I can have two apples and add them to two apples and I now have four apples, but if I go by weights something very different might happen. In fact, the chances of me winding up with a total weight twice the weight of the first two apples gets less the more precise the measurement.
The art of measuring seems nearly to be comparing two things until a difference is found.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good post, Bob. You lost me somewhere around the middle, with all the talk about whether we would be the species that would achieve this unity or not, though. Species pride is not very integral to me, so I don't care much about our place as a whole. What I care about is what happens to me as an individual. I believe in some sort of eternality of the soul (in at least one direction; I am undecided as to whether the soul existed eternally before birth, or, for that matter, whether there is reincarnation). My conception of togetherness with God is joining in His presence, and having perfect love and perfect or near-perfect knowledge. Actually joining in the Godhead in some sort of way might be nice, but is not particularly central to my beliefs at this point. (Maybe because I spent so much of my life in a faith where that was a heretical notion. )
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If human free will is important. And God is using the natural laws to create a partner (a joiner, not just a worshiper)...maybe we aren't it. Maybe we're an intermediate form.
I absolutely love the idea that God might be trying to nudge us towards creating unstoppable, artificially-intelligent war machines, which themselves will achieve perfect enlightenment thousands of years after they've killed us off. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you believe in "miracles"? That is, do you believe that God, at times, intervenes by suspending natural law?
Yes and no. Judaism teaches that things that seem to be suspensions of natural law were actually set up by God during creation. Sort of like a trick pool shot. Everything else came about through natural means.
"Judaism" does nothing of the sort! You are citing the rationalist position (exemplified by the Rambam(Maimonides)). But you completely ignore the mystics and Kabbalists (such as the Ramban (Nachmanides)) as well as those who take a more central position (like the Maharal).
Wow. No need to yell. In the first place, maybe ask me what I'm citing, rather than telling me. As it happens, you're mistaken.
"Ten things were created on the eve of Shabbat, at twilight. They are: The mouth of the earth; the mouth of the well; the mouth of the donkey; the rainbow; the Manna; the staff; the Shamir; the alphabet; the inscription; and the Tablets." --Pirkei Avot (Chapters of Principles) 5:8
Now, it's true that the Rambam says there will be no miracles in messianic times, and that he is not the only view on that question. Was that what you were alluding to? Because I agree with you about that.
With regards to Kabbalah, I accept your point. When I was thinking about miracles, I was thinking about things like what it says in Pirkei Avot, and not practical Kabbalah. I regard such things as Elisha making an axe head float and Rav Hanina and Rav Oshaya creating a calf and eating it (as described in Sanhedrin 65b as a type of science. In each case, they made use of properties of reality to accomplish something. To the extent that this is viewed as miraculous or magical, it's really just Clarke's Law in action.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You think there's a scientific principle that would allow anyone -- if they knew the trick -- to make a cow?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Using an exclamation point is yelling? *blink* Ok, I'll try to remember that is your interpretation and post accordingly.
As far as your citation from Pirkei Avos, that verse is exactly where the debate begins, not an answer to it. (And you are completely ignoring the verse previously, which mentions the miracles done for the Jews in Egypt.) What does it mean for those things to have been created in advance? What about all the other miracles? Shemesh b'Giv'on (the pausing of the sun mid-sky) immediately comes to mind.
Well, Rambam says it was pre-programmed in like the others (although it is not not on the list, which he says is simply some examples and not exhaustive); Ramban says it involved a temporary alteration in the laws of the universe; and the Maharal mentions both those possibilities and gives his own preferred one: the miracle was actually in the eyes of the beholders, and did not affect the larger universe.
All are compatible with traditional Jewish thought, which makes absolute pronouncements on very few matters of philosophy. Which was precisely my objection to your post. If you had qualified by saying that "one view in Judaism teaches" I wouldn't have made a peep.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the question (or in her case pronouncement) starLisa brings up is if there is such a thing as the Jewish religion anymore, outside of historical relationships? I have heard it said, although where I am not sure, that modern Judaism is about questions and not answers. A not so nice way of putting that, and I have heard it in similar terms, is that Judaism is a spiritually dead religion as you can believe anything you want short of Allah and Jesus Christ.
I guess that is relates to my own personal problems with Judaism (and to be fair some libral Christianities). A religion without some form of set beliefs is, in my mind, simply philosophy that mentions God.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess that is relates to my own personal problems with Judaism (and to be fair some libral Christianities).
Even without addressing whether this is accurate (I expect people more qualified than I will do so), I don't think it is a fair comparison. You break off the portion of Christianity that posseses this trait and compare it to the whole of Judaism, when it's fairly clear that at most this description can only apply to portions of Judaism.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do, and we are starting to already. Genetics has made some amazing strides.
Under slightly different circumstances, don't you think? There's a bit of a distinction between breeding a cow and creating a cow.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You think there's a scientific principle that would allow anyone -- if they knew the trick -- to make a cow?
Define science. <shrug> Judaism has a cosmology that goes beyond the physical world we generally perceive. There are techniques that can be used to perceive areas outside of what we normally do, and there are techniques for manipulating reality in ways that you can't do with a hammer or an IC chip.
I won't quibble with those who want to call that magic or miracles, but I see it as just another way of working with the world God created.
Now... could I create a calf? Nope. Nor would I risk my life and soul trying it. It definitely falls under the "kids, don't try this at home" category.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: All are compatible with traditional Jewish thought, which makes absolute pronouncements on very few matters of philosophy. Which was precisely my objection to your post. If you had qualified by saying that "one view in Judaism teaches" I wouldn't have made a peep.
I accept your criticism. I should have said that. One set of views in Orthodox Judaism teaches what I said. As a further clarification, when I talk about Judaism without a modifier, I am talking about Orthodox Judaism. But as you point out, there are numerous valid views within Judaism.
Edit: to make it 100% clear, what I said is not the only valid view in Orthodox Judaism, and rivka was correct in calling me on it. I'm grateful to her for doing so.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I think the question (or in her case pronouncement) starLisa brings up is if there is such a thing as the Jewish religion anymore, outside of historical relationships? I have heard it said, although where I am not sure, that modern Judaism is about questions and not answers. A not so nice way of putting that, and I have heard it in similar terms, is that Judaism is a spiritually dead religion as you can believe anything you want short of Allah and Jesus Christ.
I guess that is relates to my own personal problems with Judaism (and to be fair some libral Christianities). A religion without some form of set beliefs is, in my mind, simply philosophy that mentions God.
I think this is an excellent question. There are many, many Jews, particularly (but not exclusively) in the United States, who have created what I would call "watered down" versions of Judaism. Judaism-lite, so to speak. Their adherants would be livid to have their heterodox movements described as such, but in truth, what you posted describes them even better than I could have.
The very idea of God, as in the Creator of the World, being active in the world... well, it's downright embarrassing to most of them. They view it as primitive.
Not only have they cast off the yoke of Heaven (the obligation to keep God's laws), but they actually take pride in the idea that "anything goes".
I was raised in one of these movements, which calls itself the Conservative Movement. Ironically, that name is a kind of doublespeak in practice. What happened was that a movement called the Reform Movement broke away and was abandoning God's law faster than some of its adherents felt comfortable with. So those people broke off of the Reform Movement and started a more "conservative" movement that would flee at a somewhat slower pace.
When I got to college and had a chance to do some studying on my own, I found out about the richness of the religion that God gave us, and much to the annoyance of my family (though they've pretty much come to terms with it), returned to authentic Judaism.
In my opinion, and I know that the average Jew in the US will burn me in effigy for saying it, you were describing these movements accurately with "Judaism is a spiritually dead religion as you can believe anything you want short of Allah and Jesus Christ". The mistake you made is simply that these movements are not authentic Judaism. Merely a modern, "skin deep" version. What some of us call "bagels and lox Judaism".
Real Judaism is far more substantial, and in a way that makes Christianity look almost skin deep itself by comparison. I say this not to step on any Christian toes here, at least no more than you posted what you did to step on Jewish toes. That's simply my perspective as a knowlegeable Jew. I recognize that Christians feel otherwise.
Basically, anything you read about Judaism, you have to ask: "Is this Orthodox Judaism?" If it isn't, don't trust it to be describing anything other than one of the heterodox movements, none of which are older than about 200 years.
Now... to the meat of the matter. There are variant views of things in Judaism, and that has partially to do with the nature of the system given to us by God, and partially to do with the fact that the Romans (Christians) dissolved our system of courts some 17 centuries ago and made it a capital crime to reconstitute it. In the relatively short time since Jews were sufficiently concentrated in Israel to be able to work towards that end, it's been rough going. A provisional Sanhedrin has been set up in the last year under the leadership of many great rabbis in Israel, but we're only starting to heal from what the Romans did to us.
I'd be happy to elucidate if anyone is interested, but perhaps it should be a new thread. Or private e-mail.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, thank you. That was very graciously said. And I apologize if if I came down too hard initially; we covered this not long ago in the Maharal class I attend, so I am particularly aware of the various options.
Occasional, to elaborate on what Lisa said, Orthodox Judaism (and she and I agree that is what "authentic" Judaism is, although we may disagree on some of the specifics of what it is comprised of) is pretty clear on what one should do (or not do), but is far more open in terms of what one should think.
There are some basics which are pretty much agreed upon. The Rambam's 13 Principles are a good summary of those. But you will notice that many are fairly open-ended: resurrection of the dead is a basic belief, but exactly how it works and under what circumstances it will/can occur is debated. And you may also note that miracles are nowhere on that list.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, I am comfortable with the idea of basics that are agreed upon, and yet pretty open to discussion. As a Mormon that is a general idea for most doctrines. After all, we believe in an open canon<sic> where the "mysteries of G-d" can be reinterpreted or further explained.
My problem is with those who don't hold to basics to begin with.
quote:Real Judaism is far more substantial, and in a way that makes Christianity look almost skin deep itself by comparison. I say this not to step on any Christian toes here, at least no more than you posted what you did to step on Jewish toes. That's simply my perspective as a knowlegeable Jew. I recognize that Christians feel otherwise.
I am not sure what you mean by this, and yet I find myself in agreement with the sentiment. I am at least somewhat familiar with Judaism, if still on the ignorant side.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Under slightly different circumstances, don't you think? There's a bit of a distinction between breeding a cow and creating a cow.
Well, as for Mormon doctrine on "Creation" I would say the difference is a matter of degree than kind. Although the degree difference is exceptional.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
" I have heard it said, although where I am not sure, that modern Judaism is about questions and not answers."
I don't think this is modern judaism. At least, not unless we define modern as "last 2300 years." Judaism has always had a very rich tradition of questioning, and not settling on a specific answer to the question. The entirety of the Talmud is open ended debate, for example. There are no conclusions. No real, firm, established answers.
After Rambam's 13 principles, pretty much everything is up for debate.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Rivka, I am comfortable with the idea of basics that are agreed upon, and yet pretty open to discussion. As a Mormon that is a general idea for most doctrines. After all, we believe in an open canon<sic> where the "mysteries of G-d" can be reinterpreted or further explained.
My problem is with those who don't hold to basics to begin with.
quote:Real Judaism is far more substantial, and in a way that makes Christianity look almost skin deep itself by comparison. I say this not to step on any Christian toes here, at least no more than you posted what you did to step on Jewish toes. That's simply my perspective as a knowlegeable Jew. I recognize that Christians feel otherwise.
I am not sure what you mean by this, and yet I find myself in agreement with the sentiment. I am at least somewhat familiar with Judaism, if still on the ignorant side.
That quote was me, actually.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that is the case, than I would have to question Judaism as a religion. However, I don't beileve that is true Judaism. I count "true Judaism" as Torah and Ritual. I am agreed that Talmud was a presidence for modern Jewish thought. But, for me the Talmud represents a loss of religious identity during the time of Roman conquest. Of course, I recognize that is partly my Christian beliefs showing. (edit: I'll go so far as to say that is partly my Mormon beliefs about Christian development during the Roman era showing.)
I know starLisa. My quotation placement was bad. My confusion on meaning still stands.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: " I have heard it said, although where I am not sure, that modern Judaism is about questions and not answers."
I don't think this is modern judaism. At least, not unless we define modern as "last 2300 years." Judaism has always had a very rich tradition of questioning, and not settling on a specific answer to the question. The entirety of the Talmud is open ended debate, for example. There are no conclusions. No real, firm, established answers.
After Rambam's 13 principles, pretty much everything is up for debate.
With all due respect, Paul, using "Judaism" as meaning "Orthodox Judaism", your statement isn't true. The vast majority of Jewish law is absolutely settled. There is no legitimate view that you can eat a cheeseburger. There is no legitimate view that you can light a fire on Shabbat.
The areas in which there are differences of opinion are few and relatively minor, and even those only exist today because the mechanism by which Jewish law is supposed to be decided authoritatively is currently (and temporarily) broken.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: If that is the case, than I would have to question Judaism as a religion. However, I don't beileve that is true Judaism. I count "true Judaism" as Torah and Ritual. I am agreed that Talmud was a presidence for modern Jewish thought. But, for me the Talmud represents a loss of religious identity during the time of Roman conquest. Of course, I recognize that is partly my Christian beliefs showing. (edit: I'll go so far as to say that is partly my Mormon beliefs about Christian development during the Roman era showing.)
I know starLisa. My quotation placement was bad. My confusion on meaning still stands.
I think you're mistaken about the role of the Talmud in Judaism. And it is far more than ritual. Look... I'm going to start a topic called "Torah 101". This thread has been hijacked for long enough, and I think it's time to return it to the issue it started with. I hope that's okay with you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question is, is it OK with OSC. I don't have a problem with you starting a new thread on the subject.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If that is the case, than I would have to question Judaism as a religion. However, I don't beileve that is true Judaism. I count "true Judaism" as Torah and Ritual."
*Shrug* Then you've got pre-formed opinions that aren't really accurate. Judaism involves Torah and Ritual, and they are a large part of judaism. But there hasn't been judaism that doesn't involve rabbinic interpretation of the torah for a dang ole long time. Even orthodox judaism is rabbinic.
"With all due respect, Paul, using "Judaism" as meaning "Orthodox Judaism", your statement isn't true"
Of course, I'm not going to accept that statement. Orthodox jews don't have a monopoly on the religion. I know its popular amongst many orthodox jews to think this, but its a stupid statement. Once you cull out the conservative and reform jews, then you'll move onto culling out the orthodox jews who wear their hair wrong. You simply don't LIKE conservative and reform judaism, because they are a threat to your form of the religion.
"The vast majority of Jewish law is absolutely settled."
Many of the laws are settled. But not the theology, and the theology is what is important. And not even all laws are settled.
Laws are different then theology and religious doctrine, and what the rituals should be. And while judaism is a religion based on law, any religion is defined by its rituals, theology, and doctrine. And those are largely open ended questions in judaism, and always have been.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "With all due respect, Paul, using "Judaism" as meaning "Orthodox Judaism", your statement isn't true"
Of course, I'm not going to accept that statement. Orthodox jews don't have a monopoly on the religion. I know its popular amongst many orthodox jews to think this, but its a stupid statement.
Sorry, Paul, but there are red lines, and those movements have crossed them. Even the Conservative movement, which is the most "observant" of all the breakaway movements, permits things that are explicitly forbidden by the Torah, such as the prohibition of Kohanim marrying divorcees and lighting fire on Shabbat.
In any case, if you want to contend that your movements are forms of Judaism, rather than new religions that broke away from Judaism, that's certainly your right. As is mine to disagree.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Once you cull out the conservative and reform jews, then you'll move onto culling out the orthodox jews who wear their hair wrong. You simply don't LIKE conservative and reform judaism, because they are a threat to your form of the religion.
That's childish. They're a threat in the same sense that the Baal worshippers, the Sadducees and the Karaites were in their time. The fact is that God gave us the Torah, and He gave us a task, and while I understand why a lot of American Jews decided to abandon that responsibility, and while I understand even more how creating movements that told them it wasn't really wrong was an unsurprising psychological coping device, I'm going to continue relating only to the Torah that God gave us, and not count the movements that don't even believe He did.
If you don't accept the basic raison d'etre of the Jewish people, then what you have isn't Judaism. It's just Jewish-style.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Real Judaism is far more substantial, and in a way that makes Christianity look almost skin deep itself by comparison. I say this not to step on any Christian toes here, at least no more than you posted what you did to step on Jewish toes.
The problem with this is that it does the same thing in reverse that Occ's post did - compares one particular branch of Judaism with the positive trait (of substance) to an amalgam of Christianity. Both Catholicism and Protestant Reformation theologies (these are the two I know best, I'm not excluding others necessarily) are incredibly deep, in ways not necessarily appreciated by more casual practitioners or many non-practioners.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Sorry, Paul, but there are red lines, and those movements have crossed them. Even the Conservative movement, which is the most "observant" of all the breakaway movements, permits things that are explicitly forbidden by the Torah, such as the prohibition of Kohanim marrying divorcees and lighting fire on Shabbat."
Interesting. I haven't seen any conservative jews lighting a fire in their hearth. The line from the Torah reads "You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements on the Sabbath day." You know what is NOT kindling a fire? Turning on an electric light, or creating any other spark through electrical usage. Why? Because its a totally different physical and chemical process then kindling a fire.
And here's the really interesting thing: Dating back 2000 years, the prohibition against kindling a fire has been understood differently by different Jews. The REAL prohibition is against work. "You shall do no work on the sabbath." In exodus 35, kindling fire is introduced as an example, although in other places, we're told not to do work. (Repeatedly, actually).
So... when the torah was first given to us, did people cook food on the sabbath, or not? Cooking food is not considered "work" generally speaking, because its not connected to the building of the Mishkan. The prohibition against cooking food on the sabbath came much later, and not all jews followed that prohibition when it was introduced, some saying that as long as the fire was lit before the sabbath, cooking is permitted. Others said no fire may be used.
Basically, what I'm driving at, though admittedly poorly (I'm sick and I just spent 5 hours trying to do math I forget how to do and can't concentrate on because I'm sick) is that even the laws in the torah are sometimes open to interpretation. You've chosen as one of your examples a law that can be obeyed in a variety of ways. Dating back more then 2000 years, that law has been understood to mean that we can do things on the Sabbath that many orthodox jews do not currently believe we can do. If traditional judaism is the only real judaism, then you're not following the laws correctly, either, and aren't really jewish. Do you follow the laws of the talmud? Or the laws of the torah? Do you seethe a kid in its mother's milk? Probably not. But thats not a prohibition against a cheeseburger... we just interpreted it to mean that its a prohibition against a cheeseburger. Several centuries after god told us not to seethe a kid in its mother's milk. (He never told us not to eat beef and dairy together, just goats in the milk of their mother, and in fact then, we're just not allowed to COOK the goat in its mother's milk. So why do you prohibit eating cheeseburgers? Because you've chosen ONE possible interpretation of god's commandment to us, and are following it. That doesn't mean other commandments are invalid. It means you've chosen one because it fulfills your understanding of what the Torah means.
There's a very real argument to be made that jews who have stopped adapting the laws of torah to current life are not following jewish tradition, moreso then jews who actively adapt and reunderstand what we do in light of the torah. After all, thats how the laws of kashrut were developed... a constant process of re-understanding, and re-adapting, what we do, in light of the living tree that is the torah. Along with all the other laws you follow. Too bad you stopped re-examining them, and decided what was good enough 500 years ago is good for today. Judaism never operated that way until recently, so, perhaps, it is you who are breaking with tradition, and not those jews who honestly try to live life by the torah, but do not feel the need to be encumbered by overly strict interpretations that don't have good textual support.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Real Judaism is far more substantial, and in a way that makes Christianity look almost skin deep itself by comparison. I say this not to step on any Christian toes here, at least no more than you posted what you did to step on Jewish toes.
The problem with this is that it does the same thing in reverse that Occ's post did - compares one particular branch of Judaism with the positive trait (of substance) to an amalgam of Christianity. Both Catholicism and Protestant Reformation theologies (these are the two I know best, I'm not excluding others necessarily) are incredibly deep, in ways not necessarily appreciated by more casual practitioners or many non-practioners.
I imagine they are. And I admit to a certain prejudice that might be influencing my estimation of Christianity in general. To me, Christianity is still just a minor Jewish heresy that got out of control. And the only similar heresies that I'm immediately familiar with are so incredibly shallow that I may be guilty of transferring what I know about them to my opinion of Christianity. I'll try not to do that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Judaism never operated that way until recently, so, perhaps, it is you who are breaking with tradition, and not those jews who honestly try to live life by the torah, but do not feel the need to be encumbered by overly strict interpretations that don't have good textual support.
Do you mean reinterpreting the Torah for modern usage, or do you mean rejecting the Torah so that it doesn't interfer with modernism? I don't have nearly the amount of disgust with the former as I do with the latter. The problem is (and it goes with liberal Christianity just as easily) when some confuse the latter FOR the former. The former might be arguable (such as trying to understand the Creation in relation to Evolution), but the latter is simply agnosticism with a religious nametag.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful, but I have to say that the first picture that flashed into my mind upon reading the thread title was the scene in "Grease" where the angels were singing "Beauty School Drop-Out."
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Sorry, Paul, but there are red lines, and those movements have crossed them. Even the Conservative movement, which is the most "observant" of all the breakaway movements, permits things that are explicitly forbidden by the Torah, such as the prohibition of Kohanim marrying divorcees and lighting fire on Shabbat."
Interesting. I haven't seen any conservative jews lighting a fire in their hearth.
Who said anything about hearths? You do know what an internal combustion engine is, don't you?
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: The line from the Torah reads "You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements on the Sabbath day." You know what is NOT kindling a fire? Turning on an electric light, or creating any other spark through electrical usage. Why? Because its a totally different physical and chemical process then kindling a fire.
Indeed. But turning on and off electrical devices is not forbidden on Shabbat because of the prohibition of lighting fire. Sorry to disappoint you.
Yeah, when I was growing up, my Conservative teachers also told me that was what it was based on. They told me some outrageous whoppers about Orthodoxy, probably designed to keep us from ever taking an honest look at it, but this was a minor one.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: And here's the really interesting thing: Dating back 2000 years, the prohibition against kindling a fire has been understood differently by different Jews.
No, it hasn't. Unless you count the Karaites, who disposed of the Oral Torah for political reasons and reinterpreted it to mean that you couldn't even have fire burning on Shabbat if it was lit beforehand.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: The REAL prohibition is against work. "You shall do no work on the sabbath." In exodus 35, kindling fire is introduced as an example, although in other places, we're told not to do work. (Repeatedly, actually).
In fact, we're never told anything of the sort. We are told to refrain from "melachah", which is a technical term that does not equate to the English "work".
And since we're not Karaites, and we do respect the entirety of the Torah that God gave us, we use the definition of melachah that God included in the Torah.
Melachah, for those who are interested, is the set of creative activities which find their paradigms in 39 categories of activity that were necessary for the building of the tabernacle in the desert. Lighting a fire is one of these. Weaving is one. Writing is one. Cooking is one.
The 39 principle categories have derivative categories as well. For example, building is a principle category, and it includes a derivative category called "a hammer blow" (makkeh b'patish), which is a final act finishing the building of something. This applies to many types of fixing things that are broken (and conversely breaking things that are not broken).
Such as an electrical circuit. If you know something about the way electricity works, you'll be aware that a "broken circuit" is not merely a metaphor, but an accurate description.
Incandescent lightbulbs have an additional problem, because heating a solid to incandescence is hardly new, and while I can't offhand remember if it's a derivative melachah of cooking or kindling fire (I think it's cooking), it's forbidden on Shabbat in either case.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Paul, and a little knowledge is really the most the heterodox movements ever teach.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: So... when the torah was first given to us, did people cook food on the sabbath, or not?
Sure people did. We didn't, though, because God said not to.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Cooking food is not considered "work" generally speaking, because its not connected to the building of the Mishkan.
Here is a great site that discusses the 39 melachot. If you check out number 11, you'll see that cooking is certainly one of the melachot, due to the cooking of herbs to make the dyes used in the Mishkan. Incidentally, for those who don't recognize the word "Mishkan" is the Hebrew term for the portable tabernacle we carried around in the desert.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: The prohibition against cooking food on the sabbath came much later, and not all jews followed that prohibition when it was introduced, some saying that as long as the fire was lit before the sabbath, cooking is permitted. Others said no fire may be used.
I understood that this was what you were driving at. But you're mistaken. It was not a late prohibition, but one given with the rest of the Torah. It is not rabbinic in nature, but Sinaitic.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Basically, what I'm driving at, though admittedly poorly (I'm sick and I just spent 5 hours trying to do math I forget how to do and can't concentrate on because I'm sick)
Sorry. I hope you feel better.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: is that even the laws in the torah are sometimes open to interpretation. You've chosen as one of your examples a law that can be obeyed in a variety of ways. Dating back more then 2000 years, that law has been understood to mean that we can do things on the Sabbath that many orthodox jews do not currently believe we can do.
That's untrue. It was never permissible to cook food on Shabbat, except for very sick people who needed cooked food when there was none pre-prepared.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: If traditional judaism is the only real judaism, then you're not following the laws correctly, either, and aren't really jewish.
Paul, do you see what kind of conclusions you reach from faulty premises?
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Do you follow the laws of the talmud? Or the laws of the torah? Do you seethe a kid in its mother's milk? Probably not. But thats not a prohibition against a cheeseburger... we just interpreted it to mean that its a prohibition against a cheeseburger.
Hmm... you should bop on over to the Torah 101 thread. The Written Torah has never been the source of Torah law. The law that God gave us was that we cannot cook the meat of a beheimah (certain types of land animal) in the milk of a beheimah. And that we cannot eat such a cooked mixture. And that we cannot derive benefit from such a cooked mixture. And the Written Torah includes the line about kids and mothers milk three times as a mnemonic for those laws. But the law was never limited to kids and their mothers milk.
Now extending this law to include the meat of a chayah (other land animals, such as deer) and ofe (poultry) was definitely a rabbinic enactment, but we're very specific to differentiate between this rabbinic extension and the original law, which is as I described above.
Paul, we aren't Karaites. We do not learn Torah law from the Written Torah. We never had literal lex talionis, and we never cut off a woman's hand for grabbing a guy between the legs to stop him from attacking her husband. The text of the Written Torah doesn't mean what any Joe Blow might think it means. It means what God told us it means.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Several centuries after god told us not to seethe a kid in its mother's milk. (He never told us not to eat beef and dairy together, just goats in the milk of their mother, and in fact then, we're just not allowed to COOK the goat in its mother's milk.
I can see that the remainder of your post is just additional repetitions of the same mistake.
See, one of the laws in the Torah is that we're not allowed to add new laws and attribute them to God. That's why we're so careful to distinguish between d'Rabbanan (rabbinic) laws and d'Orayta (Sinaitic) laws. Chicken parmesan is a rabbinic prohibition. Veal parmesan is a Torah prohibition.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: There's a very real argument to be made that jews who have stopped adapting the laws of torah to current life are not following jewish tradition, moreso then jews who actively adapt and reunderstand what we do in light of the torah.
Yes, Paul. As I said, I grew up Conservative. I know the whole party line. It doesn't work. We do, in fact, adapt the laws of the Torah to current situations. What the Conservative movement doesn't like is that we don't necessarily do so in a lenient direction. There hasn't been a single divergence by the Conservative movement that hasn't been in the direction of breaking the bounds of some Torah law or another. If they were honest about adapting, you'd expect to see one or two adaptations in the direction of stringency as well. But you never do. It makes their claims a bit suspect.
The fact that their statement of principles (Emet v'Emunah) denies that the Torah (even the Written Torah) was given by God at Sinai pretty much settles it.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: After all, thats how the laws of kashrut were developed... a constant process of re-understanding, and re-adapting, what we do, in light of the living tree that is the torah.
I understand that this may be what you were taught. I'm telling you that you were taught falsely. I was taught that both Conservative and Orthodox Jews held that the Oral Torah was created by human beings, and that the only difference was that those funky old Orthos, for whatever reason, decided to freeze the process back around the year 200 CE, while the modern, liberal, wonderful Conservatives were continuing an age old tradition.
When I found out that they'd lied about Orthodox beliefs in such a self-serving way, I was quite angry. But I was younger then. Now it just makes me sad.
The truth is that Orthodox Judaism has been adapting continuously over the years, and the Conservatives want to dismiss all of that change and start over from a point in the past. And in truth, even that is giving them more credit than is proper. This movement is purely demand-driven. What the congregation wants, the congregation will eventually get. They decided to allow Kohanim to marry divorcees despite the explicit prohibition both in the Written and Oral Torahs, and they did it because it was losing them a lot of big money donors, who just would have skipped on over to the Reform movement if their choice of a mate got balked.
That's not serving God, Paul. That's serving themselves.
But back on the topic of religion...
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful, but I have to say that the first picture that flashed into my mind upon reading the thread title was the scene in "Grease" where the angels were singing "Beauty School Drop-Out."
quote:Judaism never operated that way until recently, so, perhaps, it is you who are breaking with tradition, and not those jews who honestly try to live life by the torah, but do not feel the need to be encumbered by overly strict interpretations that don't have good textual support.
Do you mean reinterpreting the Torah for modern usage, or do you mean rejecting the Torah so that it doesn't interfer with modernism? I don't have nearly the amount of disgust with the former as I do with the latter. The problem is (and it goes with liberal Christianity just as easily) when some confuse the latter FOR the former. The former might be arguable (such as trying to understand the Creation in relation to Evolution), but the latter is simply agnosticism with a religious nametag.
Occasional, I just want you to be clear that Paul is expressing a view that would have been utterly unrecognizable to any Jew even 200 years ago. It's a modern invention.
The way in which the law gets adapted to current situations is not like understanding creation in relation to evolution. Let me see if I can give you a few examples...
Okay, deaf-mutes. Torah law originally treated deaf-mutes as belonging to a similar category with minors and the mad. Basically, people who are not considered to be competent adults in the eyes of the law. This consideration applied mostly to exemptions from obligations, and not being able to fulfill obligations for those who are considered competant.
Now, for most of history, deaf-mutes have been unable to learn. It's only relatively recently that the development of hearing aids and sign language and the like have changed this.
So we were faced with a question. Is the definition of a cheresh (normally translated as "deaf-mute") someone who cannot hear or speak, or is it someone who cannot learn because he cannot hear or speak?
It's a valid question. And it does involve a situation that is new. But we have principles, and we have a living Torah that was given to use by an omnicient Creator who obviously knew that this situation would arise. And it was ruled, by using the Torah according to the Manufacturer's instructions, that deaf-mutes are only incompetant if they're incompetant. And that it's not determined solely by the ability to hear or speak.
There is also a level of compassion built into the law. For example, if someone takes a chicken to a rabbi because they see something that they're not sure if it's kosher or not, the rabbi has some degree of leeway in the answer he gives. There are lenient positions that are acceptable if there's a serious need, and that might be applied if the person asking the question would otherwise have nothing to eat. Again, this is built into the system.
In today's materialistic world, things are binary. You might think that something is kosher, or it's not. But that's not always how Torah law works.
Another example. If I'm making a pot of beef stew and a bit of milk falls in, what do I do? Well, if the amount is small enough (the ratio is given in our sources), it doesn't matter. The milk is nullified by the much greater quantity of meat.
But suppose I deliberately drop the same amount of milk in, intending to nullify it as above? In that case, the pot of food is no longer kosher.
Anyway, I've gone on long enough. Suffice it to say that it's not just a game that gets played. We follow God's will and His laws in the way He instructed us to. What we don't do is accept every cultural fad that comes along. And that's what movements like the Conservative and Reform object to.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks to everyone who has responded thus far. I appreciate the detail and sincerity of your answers. Returning a bit to the original topic with some follow up questions:
Many of you have stated that there is no conflict between "true" science and "true" religion. It is easy to see how someone can use their religious worldview to inform (for good or ill) their scientific worldview. Do any of you feel that your scientific worldview has influenced, informed, or otherwise altered your religious worldview?
To illustrate the difference: Some people believe in a literal 7-day creation. (Some interpret this in light of a 1 divine day = 1000 human years time scale). Many who so believe approach scientific findings indicating a much older Earth by variously clinging to and over-inflating inherent scientific uncertainty, (e.g. "That's just one interpretation of the facts"), rejecting the experiments (e.g. "Carbon dating is flawed"), or attacking science itself wholesale (e.g. "Scientists make mistakes all the time" or "Science is reversing itself all the time"). In short, where they see a conflict, they put the doubt on the science in light of the "truth" of their religion.
On the other hand, some people believe that science is largely correct about the origins of the Earth and the vast number of millennia needed for life to arrise and evolve to what we see today. For many this causes them to re-assess their religious views. Some question traditional interpretations (e.g. "'7 days' really means '7 periods of time'. We don't know how long they were"), exchange literalness for metaphor, or appeal to the humanity of the source (e.g. "The prophets were imperfect human conduits of divine truth.)
I chose creationism as my topic in the examples because that is widely debated and I've heard all the justifications I've noted and more. Do any of you have any other examples of ways in which your religion causes you to reject any widely-held scientific beliefs? Or ways in which your scientific understanding has moved you to re-interpret your religious understanding?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Do you mean reinterpreting the Torah for modern usage, or do you mean rejecting the Torah so that it doesn't interfer with modernism?"
I mean reinterpreting the torah for modern usage.
Lisa is wrong about conservate and reform judaism when she says " What we don't do is accept every cultural fad that comes along. And that's what movements like the Conservative and Reform object to.". There's an honest, sincere effort to understand the torah and apply it to modern light. Her prejudices are just that... prejudices.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do any of you feel that your scientific worldview has influenced, informed, or otherwise altered your religious worldview?
It influences it certainly, but mostly in a way to keep me constantly aware that I don't necessarily have a handle on what is Truth.
Let's take human civilization*. From what I can understand from my scriptures, it sure looks like man has been on earth for approximately 6,000 years. Science tells us that human civilization (not to mention humans at all, which I'm mentioning by saying to not mention them at all) as been around for a lot longer than that.
What does this mean to me? Nothing more than I know that my interpretation of scripture doest not agree with the commonly accepted interpretation of the physical evidence in the world. So whenever I'm studying the scriptures and this topic shows up, I'm always wondering if my interpretation is correct, and looking for ways that my understanding might be incomplete. Likewise, whenever I'm studying ancient cultures, I'm always thinking "I wonder if they are really that old..."
To tell you the truth, it's not that big a deal. After all, how much of a difference does it make to me in my life? Not much. It's not a question that deals with how to live a moral, charitable life, which is what I believe the purpose of religion is.
To put it into Mormon nomenclature, it doesn't affect my eternal salvation, so it doesn't really matter.
*I chose not to use your example of the creation of the earth since being LDS, it's not nearly as much of a problem. When I look at the creation story found in the other (LDS) scriptures besides Genesis, it seemps pretty apparent that we haven't been told exactly how long the creation took place.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Who said anything about hearths? You do know what an internal combustion engine is, don't you?"
Yes, I do. You do know how an internal combustion engine is started, don't you? Its certainly not "kindling." Which is basically my point, here. You've chosen an expansive definition of kindling and fire, and thats fine. But the prohibition on the sabbath is against work. Kindling a fire was part of building the Mishkan, and so considered work. Driving to temple on saturday morning is not work... its the opposite. Its doing what is required to do what the sabbath is there for: worship, study of torah, ritual, and contemplation.
"Indeed. But turning on and off electrical devices is not forbidden on Shabbat because of the prohibition of lighting fire. Sorry to disappoint you."
Before this prohibition came into effect, rabbis were asking physicists whether an electrical spark was fire. When the physicists gave them an answer the rabbi's didn't like, they went off in search of new ways to prohibit turning on an electrical light. I don't consider the sophistry the rabbi's went through in order to ban the use of electrical lights on the sabbth to be any more legitimate use of judaism then you consider reform and conservative rabbi's making decisions on law that contradict the talmud.
That said, clearly electricity cannot be used on the sabbath for certain purposes.
But those purposes are what I dispute the ancient rabbi's have a monopoly on understanding.
"In fact, we're never told anything of the sort. We are told to refrain from "melachah", which is a technical term that does not equate to the English "work".
And since we're not Karaites, and we do respect the entirety of the Torah that God gave us, we use the definition of melachah that God included in the Torah.
Melachah, for those who are interested, is the set of creative activities which find their paradigms in 39 categories of activity that were necessary for the building of the tabernacle in the desert. Lighting a fire is one of these. Weaving is one. Writing is one. Cooking is one.
The 39 principle categories have derivative categories as well. For example, building is a principle category, and it includes a derivative category called "a hammer blow" (makkeh b'patish), which is a final act finishing the building of something. This applies to many types of fixing things that are broken (and conversely breaking things that are not broken).
Such as an electrical circuit. If you know something about the way electricity works, you'll be aware that a "broken circuit" is not merely a metaphor, but an accurate description.
Incandescent lightbulbs have an additional problem, because heating a solid to incandescence is hardly new, and while I can't offhand remember if it's a derivative melachah of cooking or kindling fire (I think it's cooking), it's forbidden on Shabbat in either case.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Paul, and a little knowledge is really the most the heterodox movements ever teach."
And a little interpretation is also a dangerous thing, and then excluding other interpretations is even more dangerous, because one isolates oneself.
As you say, the prohibition is against doing what is required to build the Mishkan. (Work is a close enough translation that I'll continue to use it). Look at why you argue an electrical circuit can't be used on sabbath... not because the prohibition is in the torah, but because the rabbi's say building includes striking a hammer blow means finishing a work which includes closing an electrical circuit which is prohibited because of the Torah's prohibition against building.
So you've closed off an entire set of activities that can be completed, based on the Torah's prohibition against building.
This is my argument: That to close off the usage of electricity (whether through the prohibition against kindling a fire, or the prohibition against building) is interpretation. If someone interprets the kindling of a fire, or prohibition against building, to mean that the use of electricity is allowed (a ridiculously easy interpretation to make based on the textual evidence), then it is not the orthodox jew's place to decide that the interpretation is not jewish. It might not be judaism as practiced by the orthodox jew, but thats not the same as not being jewish.
"The fact that their statement of principles (Emet v'Emunah) denies that the Torah (even the Written Torah) was given by God at Sinai pretty much settles it."
For someone who complains about a sect of judaism being "lied" about by other sects of judaism, you do a good job of mis-stating what conservative jews believe. Perhaps you should stop being hypocritical?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:To tell you the truth, it's not that big a deal. After all, how much of a difference does it make to me in my life? Not much. It's not a question that deals with how to live a moral, charitable life, which is what I believe the purpose of religion is.
To put it into Mormon nomenclature, it doesn't affect my eternal salvation, so it doesn't really matter.
This is a common view I encounter among religious people. It seems to me to lead to the question, then, is scientific inquiry important at all?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a second question today but I'm having difficulty formulating it concisely so please bear with me.
Science knows that it doesn't know everything. Science is continually evolving, refining, and sometimes reversing its previously held notions. While individual scientists sometimes cling to inaccurate or downright wrong notions about the world, the institution as a whole largely moves toward greater, more correct understanding of our world. Science looks at the past with a sort of benevolent amusement at "scientific" beliefs we now know are dead wrong.
My question for the scientifically minded theist is, does your religion allow for new knowledge? I don't mean "new to you". I mean knowledge that your particular sect didn't have before but does now. If it does, are there any examples of this new knowledge invalidating or changing anything your sect once held as "true" in the past? Do you entertain the possibility that your sect might gain new knowledge in the future that might invalidate some currently accepted religious "knowledge"?
Additionally, science arrives at "knowledge" for the most part by common concensus and independant validation. If two scientists disagree on what is true, they devise experiments to determine which, if either of them is correct. If these experiments are to be accepted as valid in the community at large, they must be repeatable with the same results. Any individual scientist with the appropriate resources should be able to perform the same experiment and discover the same facts.
Do you believe that there is any analog to this as it applies to religious knowledge? If you do not, do you believe that the word "knowledge" applies differently to the two fields? How?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I can sort of understand the light-switch as work/hammer_blow/fixing_a_broken_circuit.
But what about transistors? What about hall-effect switches, which do not physically close a circuit or cause a spark (or electron) to jump across a gap? In other words, if I leave my Palm Pilot on all weekend, can I use it on the Sabbath?
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Who said anything about hearths? You do know what an internal combustion engine is, don't you?"
Yes, I do. You do know how an internal combustion engine is started, don't you? Its certainly not "kindling." Which is basically my point, here. You've chosen an expansive definition of kindling and fire, and thats fine.
I've "chosen" nothing of the sort, Paul. I understand that it's important to you to label others as observing Judaism according to what feels good to them, because it supports your own choice to do only that which feels good to you. But I assure you that you don't know what you're talking about.
The fact that you don't know how such determinations are arrived at doesn't justify your making erronious claims. I know quite a bit about the Conservative movement, having grown up in a Conservative family, having gone to a Conservative synagogue, having spent 9 years at Camp Ramah in Wisconsin. I almost went to JTS. I know what I'm talking about. You don't have any similar basis for discussing what Orthodox Judaism is or what it does. You are merely parroting the misinformation taught by the Conservative movement.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: But the prohibition on the sabbath is against work. Kindling a fire was part of building the Mishkan, and so considered work. Driving to temple on saturday morning is not work... its the opposite. Its doing what is required to do what the sabbath is there for: worship, study of torah, ritual, and contemplation.
The Torah doesn't bar work on Shabbat. It bars melachah. And that means what God told us it means. Not what you choose to consider it as meaning.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Indeed. But turning on and off electrical devices is not forbidden on Shabbat because of the prohibition of lighting fire. Sorry to disappoint you."
Before this prohibition came into effect, rabbis were asking physicists whether an electrical spark was fire.
Well, of course they were. Most of the applications of electricity were very similar to those of fire. Cooking, lighting. It was a matter of due diligence to go to the experts to find out whether the same mechanism was in use. That's the first thing a responsible Jew would do.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: When the physicists gave them an answer the rabbi's didn't like, they went off in search of new ways to prohibit turning on an electrical light.
That libel is the sort of thing that's taught in the Conservative movement. But it's utterly untrue. In fact, major efforts have been made to come up with ways around the prohibitions for emergency purposes. The grama switch was a particularly elegant solution. It gets around the problem of direct makkeh b'patish, leaving only the rabbinic prohibition of grama, which can be applied more leniently.
For those to whom this is all gibberish, a brief explanation. I already explained the issue of makkeh b'patish and why it makes flipping an electrical switch on Shabbat a prohibited act.
Since, contrary to Paul's misconceptions, we are interested in finding ways to make life easier when possible, and since we know that loopholes must be legitimate, since God is omniscient and could hardly have made loopholes possible inadvertantly, some rabbis/scientists looked into the issue of switches.
What they came up with was the grama switch (pronounced GRAH-mah). Grama means causing something to happen indirectly. And here's how the grama switch works.
Inside the switch, a circuit is set up that is constantly opening and closing. Automatically. You can do that; set something up before Shabbat and let it go by itself on Shabbat. Now when you press the button on a grama switch, it moves a physical blockage in the way of the inner switch closing. It doesn't break the circuit, but the next time the circuit tries to close, it is prevented. What you did when you pressed the button was the cause of the circuit not being completed, rather than directly breaking it.
It's a cool solution, and it's an example of the energy put into finding useful ways to make things better. A Conservative solution would have been to just say, "Hell, if you need to use the phone, use the phone!"
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I don't consider the sophistry the rabbi's went through in order to ban the use of electrical lights on the sabbth to be any more legitimate use of judaism then you consider reform and conservative rabbi's making decisions on law that contradict the talmud.
You call it sophistry, but I contend that you lack the requisite knowledge of the field to make that judgement. Also, I gave examples of laws that the Conservative movement dumped that are explicit in the Torah itself, and not only in the Talmud.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: That said, clearly electricity cannot be used on the sabbath for certain purposes.
Why not? Once you throw away the Torah system, any decisions you make are purely subjective.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Paul, and a little knowledge is really the most the heterodox movements ever teach."
And a little interpretation is also a dangerous thing, and then excluding other interpretations is even more dangerous, because one isolates oneself.
Right. We probably should have embraced the Hellenists and the Sadducees and the Karaites. Tell me, Paul, do you celebrate Hanukkah? Perhaps you should consider whose side you would have been on.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: As you say, the prohibition is against doing what is required to build the Mishkan. (Work is a close enough translation that I'll continue to use it).
I didn't say that. I said that they are related to those categories. Surely going to the bathroom was a necessary activity during the building of the Mishkan, but it's not one of the 39 categories. The source of the 39 categories and the fact that they can be related to the work done for the Mishkan is in the Oral Torah.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Look at why you argue an electrical circuit can't be used on sabbath... not because the prohibition is in the torah, but because the rabbi's say building includes striking a hammer blow means finishing a work which includes closing an electrical circuit which is prohibited because of the Torah's prohibition against building.
No. Makkeh b'patish is forbidden from the Torah. But again, we aren't Karaites. The Torah is not limited to the Pentateuch.
God gave us principles and data, and a system by which to apply them. That is Torah.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: So you've closed off an entire set of activities that can be completed, based on the Torah's prohibition against building.
No, those activities are d'Orayta (Torah) prohibitions. Not rabbinic extensions.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: This is my argument: That to close off the usage of electricity (whether through the prohibition against kindling a fire, or the prohibition against building) is interpretation.
Yeah, Paul, I get that. I just don't understand why you consider yourself able to make that claim. I mean, I wouldn't dream of arguing something in the field of medicine. Particularly not with a physician. I have more self-respect than to argue about physics with my friend the brilliant physicist. I can understand (barely) why you might want to make claims about what the Conservative movement does. But man, you are so dead wrong about Orthodox Judaism.
You think things are in the text of the Torah that aren't there. You think things are rabbinic extensions of the law that are Torah law.
You keep talking about the Mishkan, but surely you realize that the same rabbis who pointed to the relation between the Mishkan and Shabbat also say that makkeh b'patish is a Torah prohibition. So essentially, you're picking and choosing. Doing the very thing that you're falsely claiming we do.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: If someone interprets the kindling of a fire, or prohibition against building, to mean that the use of electricity is allowed (a ridiculously easy interpretation to make based on the textual evidence), then it is not the orthodox jew's place to decide that the interpretation is not jewish.
Paul. It is the role of those who stand in the line of transmission of the Torah from Sinai onwards to use the Torah as God told us to. Your movement denies that the Revelation at Sinai even happened. Please spare me the adolescent rebellion stuff. It is only the Orthodox Jew's place to determine what views are a part of Normative Judaism and what views are not.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "The fact that their statement of principles (Emet v'Emunah) denies that the Torah (even the Written Torah) was given by God at Sinai pretty much settles it."
For someone who complains about a sect of judaism being "lied" about by other sects of judaism, you do a good job of mis-stating what conservative jews believe. Perhaps you should stop being hypocritical?
Hey, I spent a whole Shabbat last year talking with Rabbi Neil Gilman of the Jewish Theological Seminary. You know the Conservative rabbinical school. Poor guy... he's truly lost, and incredibly depressed about it. The Conservative movement does not accept literal Torah miSinai, and perhaps if you read the literature of your own religion, you'd be aware of that.
As to what individual Conservative Jews believe, well, the vast majority of self-identifying Conservative Jews do not keep kosher and do not keep Shabbat, and almost none of them keep the laws of family purity. Are you sure you want to define your movement on the basis of the rank and file?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: My question for the scientifically minded theist is, does your religion allow for new knowledge? I don't mean "new to you". I mean knowledge that your particular sect didn't have before but does now. If it does, are there any examples of this new knowledge invalidating or changing anything your sect once held as "true" in the past? Do you entertain the possibility that your sect might gain new knowledge in the future that might invalidate some currently accepted religious "knowledge"?
While I object to the term "sect", I'll assume that you didn't mean it in an offensive way.
Yes, in Judaism, this is possible. In some areas. For example, smoking was not prohibited a hundred years ago. Today, it is forbidden to start smoking (according to all authorities), and an obligation to quit according to many. This is due to discoveries in the field of medicine.
But it doesn't go all that far beyond that kind of thing. Deaf-mutes were treated one way in the past because of the limitations they had learning. Things have changed now, and they are treated differently in Jewish law.
But the principles behind each of these remain the same.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: Question for Paul:
(And I'm not being a wise-ass...this time)
I can sort of understand the light-switch as work/hammer_blow/fixing_a_broken_circuit.
But what about transistors? What about hall-effect switches, which do not physically close a circuit or cause a spark (or electron) to jump across a gap? In other words, if I leave my Palm Pilot on all weekend, can I use it on the Sabbath?
(Just checking out the limits)
--Steve
You can't use it. And actually, even with transistors, closing a circuit is a reality. Something makes electrons flow or not flow, after all, right?
Now... if you leave it on all weekend and it's got a wireless connection and is constantly updating with information that you can see on the screen without you acting on it in any way, there's nothing to stop you from looking at the screen.
In theory (in theory only), you can leave the television on all day so that you can watch it on Shabbat. We don't do it in practice, because it's considered improper, but it isn't actually forbidden.
During the first Gulf War, I was living in Jerusalem. We needed to be able to hear the incoming missile alerts so that we could know when to put our gas masks on and when we could take them off. So the rabbis ruled publically that everyone had to leave a radio on in the house for the entirety of Shabbat. There was one radio station that broadcast dead air the entire day, except for during incoming missiles. So I went to sleep with a little bit of white noise in my ear, and woke up in the middle of the night when Saddam shot at us again.
quote: From the book From Our Sealed Rooms: Friday, January 25, 1991 As a service to the religious community, the Israel Broadcast Authority is keeping one radio station silent except in cases of emergency, when it will start broadcasting. What a new concept in Judaism--Shabbat radio!
quote:While I object to the term "sect", I'll assume that you didn't mean it in an offensive way.
I certainly didn't mean it offensively. I guess I could have said "denomination" but I don't think that's precisely the word I wanted. Does anyone else take offense at the word "sect"?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know now why Jesus' movement was popular in its day. He was advocating then (to the Pharisees, who are the fathers of the current rabbinic tradition) the same things that Paul is saying now. In fact if you take out the "Jesus is God" issue, you end up with about where Paul Goldner is.
posted
Oh, he's gonna hate that. But it's true. Among the first changes that took place in the early Church were mixed gender prayers and a de-emphasis on ritual and law.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I believe Jesus wasn't the only "reformer" of the jewish faith around at the time either. He just ended up being the most widely known, because of the whole "God" thing. But being raised conservative Christian, you can't read the new testament without getting "scribes, pharisees, hypocrites" ingrained into you, even if it was a poetic device of the author and nothing more.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
